Tuesday, 31 July 2018

It's the go-to political cliche for every opportunistic charlatan seeking to win support for whatever wheeze he has in mind. 'For our children, and our children's children....'. But actually the concept has often crossed my own mind when I consider the NWO globalist threat posed to my country and the West in general. Because this threat, destroying our heritage, ethnic solidarity and the family structure on which both are based, will not really affect me given my age. The same cannot be said for my children, and my children's children. I dread to think what their world will be like say in another twenty to thirty years.

In fact that world will surely, if present trends continue, be terrible for all Whites, even the so-called elites leading the destruction. Surely Europe's most powerful leaders must share my concerns to some degree? Well no. Because, incredibly, and in defiance of statistical norms, the majority of Europe's leaders, especially those from the most powerful countries, are barren and childless. I researched the subject and ticked off the list with mounting incredulity.

Angela Merkel

Theresa May Emmanuel Macron

Paolo Gentiloni (Italian prime minister up to a few months ago)

Holland's Mark Rutte

Sweden's Stefan Loumlfven

Luxembourg's Xavier Bettel

Scotland's Nicola Sturgeon

"Ireland's" Leo Varadkar

Jean-Claude Druncker and now Martin Selmayr, the guy parachuted in against the rules to succeed Druncker

This is absolutely stunning and would have been virtually impossible at any other time in human history. Whatever's driving the most powerful EU leaders it's not the future of their children and their children's children. Note that all of them are ardent NWO globalists while those leaders with normal families (such as Viktor Orban, who has five children) are on the opposite side. A grossly disproportionate number of the people making decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal stake in that future. Such people's motivation will naturally focus on their own temporal personal interests and as such they are far more likely to make pacts with the devil as it were in order to advance those personal interests.

Friday, 27 July 2018

The BBC (the HebeBC?) is puzzled by the Third World poverty levels in Govan, Glasgow. "Someone actually dropped a child inside a clothing bin to pass stuff out. When the police came to chase the others away the child was left inside." There are "men loitering on street corners, bin lorries and council collection trucks picking up old sofas, mattresses and broken drawers left on pavements and rubbish blows around in the breeze." Charity worker Margo Uprichard said the poverty in the area is quite extraordinary. "We had workless men standing on street corners, large families and flats where there are infestations we have not seen for generations. Bed bugs, cockroaches and rats in flats."And for once the BBC isn't lying. I know, because being an avid Celtic supporter I've frequently visited arch-enemy Rangers' ground which is close to Govan. I can testify to the filth, squalor, criminality and destitution of the place. (I'm talking about Govan here, not Ibrox Stadium. But now that I think of it....). And the reporter is puzzled as to why this should be. So why is the area so poor? blares one of the report's headlines. Well perhaps inadvertantly Rachel Moon of Govanhill Law Centre identified a possible cause. "Govanhill has the highest concentration of cockroaches in Scotland. Quite often they just travel up and down the flats and it is really difficult to eradicate them."

If I were the naughty kind I'd ask could she be referring to the thousands of Roma gypsies that seem to make up the majority of Govanites? They're all over the place, doing what the Roma do. The lower picture shows their impact on the apartment block specially built for them in Kosice, Slovakia. But right on cue the local police scotch (see what I did there?) that suggestion. Ch Insp Graham McInarlin, the area commander, says "If we are to believe everything we read then the Roma are responsible for all crime in the area. In actual fact we know that is not the case." Well done Inspector. Your Masonic globalist superiors have duly noted your contribution.

But Sheffield (here's the city's First Citizen) Council had more realistic expectations prior to a mass invasion of Roma enrichers in 2013. To wit:'Don't defecate or urinate on the street''Don't have sex on the street''Don't dump your rubbish in your neighbour's yard''Don't try to sell your babies''Don't shoplift''Don't rip out and sell the plumbing and other utilities from your taxpayer-provided housing'

The tyranny of low expectations.Maybe I should send this post on to help the puzzled typist reporter at the Beeb?

Tuesday, 24 July 2018

Have you ever asked yourself why Whites are not fighting back against their dispossession? Far from taking up arms to drive out the invaders and execute the traitors Whites don't even take the risk-free alternative of the secret ballot.The fundamental cause of White (especially White male) passivity is down to the endless cradle-to-grave multi-faceted propaganda directed against everything White, straight, Christian and masculine. No need to elaborate on this other than to suggest that this may be powerful enough to actually alter the target's brain chemistry, in effect making White males different people to what they would have been. It also forces them to ask the question 'why should we fight if we're so bad?'Trends towards smaller families, ever easier divorce, weaker ties due to a rootless itinerant globalist lifestyle and targeting White neighbourhoods/regions for enrichment all undermine White social cohesion and trust, and hence the possibility of organised revolt.Women, especially younger White women, are highly xenophilic. They're the ones usually holding the REFUGEES WELCOME signs and poll after poll shows them voting for open borders and against 'right wing' candidates. Obviously virtue-signalling is an important motivator with vacuous young women but there's also an evolutionary psychology dimension. "For foreign conquest and alien rule, the evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that women should fear alien rule much less than men, but only so long as they are reproductive, because they then have a good chance of being spared by the conquerors and have the option of marrying into them. Accordingly, the analyses of the Eurobarometer data show that young women are much less xenophobic than young men, but the sex differences disappear around age"

Male testosterone levels are plummeting, and rebel leaders will always be high T. Maybe that's why we don't have any. And all revolutions need leaders.

On a more prosaic level we have to understand the potential down-side for any straight White male stepping outside the PC reservation. An indiscreet word is enough to get him charged for “hate speech”. At a minimum this means heavy legal fees, probably a fine or even a jail sentence and loss of his job. With a criminal record his alternative employment prospects are dim. His family will also be dragged in to public odium. He also knows that the police, judicial system and military contain a rapidly decreasing ratio of straight White men like him. He'll realise that blacks, Muslims, queers and Jews in those positions will be willing to pull the trigger, both literally and metaphorically.Finally there's the issue of priorities. We see in poll after poll, and we know it from our own personal experience, that White people are opposed to the ongoing mudslide engulfing their countries. Yet they continually vote in political parties that clearly have no intention of stopping it. Despite the facts I outlined above it seems clear to me that Whites just don't see this issue as their top problem. Their primary drivers seem to be economic in the broadest sense. Employment, taxes, inflation etc.Which leads me back to a contention I've been making for many years. Namely that Whites will not rebel in the absence of a catastrophic economic melt-down. And here I'm not referring to the likes of 2008, rather to that of the thirties or even worse. The irony is that by allowing invaders from the Third World swamp our countries we will become more like the Third World with every day that passes. The defining characteristic of the Third World is poverty. And that's the level of poverty that will finally drive Whites to rebel. Problem is by that time in many cases they'll be strangers in their own lands, their time passed....

Saturday, 21 July 2018

We've been trained like performing seals to clap at the very mention of 'diversity', programmed for at least half a century by non-stop brainwashing. But have you ever noticed how its advocates never bother to explain how diversity - filling your country with the kind of people who build the kind of countries those same people are desperate to escape from - is good? No, they seem confident that the brainwashed plebs will happily fill in the blanks with their own version of the mantra. Sure we get vague amorphous aspirational stufflike...diversity challenges assumptions, opens minds, and unlocks our potential in the way monoculture never could. Which I'm sure will come as a surprise to the Chinese and Japanese, and to the British and Germans of the twentieth century.

That's because they felt no need for racial or gender quotas, forced residential integration, voting-rights laws, affirmative action or citizens burning down their own cities. The simple observable demonstrable truth is that the more racially and/or religiously mixed a country is, the more unstable it becomes, because it has no common culture, heritage, history, values, heroes and legends. And forced mixing exacerbates existing fault lines as per Chateau Heartiste's axiom Diversity + Proximity = War. Again, the evidence for this is everywhere, both contemporaneously and historically. Check out Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Rwanda. Or even up the road in Northern Ireland.

Despite all of this the project, whose ultimate aim is to blend Whites out of existence, has been on steroids of late for whatever reason. Could it have something to do with this fact: That when Jews claim that “diversity is our greatest strength” they're dead right?

Tuesday, 17 July 2018

If we're to believe our globohomo overlords it seems that the Western world faces a new and sinister threat: Populism. According to that corrupt traitor Tony Blair "the rise of the populists has already changed the social and economic policies pursued by many countries; created new tensions between nation-states within Europe; and begun to put pressure on democratic institutions in a variety of countries that had once been seen as consolidated democracies". EU nation-wreckers such as Juncker and Tusk have voiced similar concerns.

Which I find confusing. How can the expressed will of the ordinary people be anti-democratic? According to Bliar populism draws a “sharp distinction between friend and enemy, with supporters portrayed as legitimate and opponents illegitimate. Populists claim to represent the people against elites, immigrants, or some other minority – and have a fondness for referendums."

And that's bad? Hey, even (((Wiki))) has - at least for now - a positive take on it, describing it as 'a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite'.

Maybe one of the world's leading experts on populism can tell us what's wrong with it. Here's Zsolt Enyedi who's a professor at the Soros-funded Central European University. "Populism is a threat to democracy primarily because it holds the potential of providing the state with a moral status that it otherwise lacks. Once the state turns into the embodiment of the virtuous people the defense mechanisms developed against tyranny, such as freedoms, checks and balances, the rule of law, tolerance, autonomous social institutions, individual and group rights, or pluralism, are inevitably under threat. It undermines the civility of the relations among citizens. It erodes the respect for the dignity of political opponents and of minority groups and weakens the culture of reasoned debates."

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. Let me translate this academic sleight-of-hand for you. Populism is bad because it implements the will of the people untrammelled by anti-democratic institutions (gamed political systems, laws that criminalise unapproved speech and courts that ruthlessly enforce them against ordinary (read White) citizens, Cultural Marxist academia and the controlled media and 'entertainment' industries that endlessly parrot the Approved Narrative). As for undermining the civility of the relations among citizens, well, that 'civility' is a euphemism for Stalinist enforcement of political correctness.

The very reasons populism is attacked by our globohomo overlords and their academic and media whores are the very reasons why it's very much a Good Thing. It disintermediates the control mechanisms they've devised to dilute, divert and ultimately frustrate the will of the ordinary people, the White working-class 'losers' whom they hold in so much contempt. It gave us, inter alia, Brexit, Trump and Orban. It's growing in almost every White country. Ultimately it might lead to retributive justice against the West's traitorous leaders. No wonder they're worried.

Wednesday, 11 July 2018

The Congo languishes at the very bottom of just about every comparative international metric. Apart from one. You see the Congo holds the coveted prize of The Worst Country In The World For Women. Even the Guardian concedes it to be "the rape capital of the world where women are raped while going go to the fields or on their way to market to trade, or also on the road to the stream while going to fetch water". Far from protecting the women, the forces of law and order are in fact the worst offenders.

A recent Oxfam report denounced the shocking scale of domestic sexual violence. 'Women ... are treated as second-class citizens with few opportunities to enter politics and make a difference in gender relations. Forced marriages of girls under 18 remain a severe obstacle to education." Over vast areas of the country the Congolese live in mud or grass huts without sanitation, power or medical services (apart from witch doctors who'll prescribe albino body parts as a remedy for most ailments). Malnutrition and even starvation are endemic.

You'd imagine then (well actually you wouldn't if you were paying attention) that a woman who managed to escape that country and get United States citizenship would be eternally grateful to her new country and its institutions. Enter stage left Patricia Okoumou, the woman who blocked the Statue Of Liberty to protest at Trump's immigration policies. "Trump has wrecked this country apart [sic]. I can say a lot of things about this monster, but I will stop at this: His draconian zero-tolerance policy on immigration has to go."

Can you just imagine what life would be like for us if and when primitive ingrates like her achieve numerical dominance in our countries? To get such a sense cross the Atlantic to Sheffield, one of England's largest cities. Once the centre of a proud engineering and steel manufacturing tradition, Sheffield has seen its fortunes decline as traitorous globohomo leaders outsourced the work to foreign shores. As the White working class goes into sharp decline its place is being taken by a motley mob of Third World bottom feeders. One of whom, a Somali asylum seeker with the good old English name of Majid Majid, has been elected by these citizens as the city's Mayor.

Is he grateful to his new country for such an extraordinary development? Not a bit of it. He openly despises Britain and its institutions, including the Mayoral office that he holds, dressing in ghetto gear and threatening to remove the portrait of the Queen in his office and replace it by that of his (presumably burka-clad) mother. And now on behalf of the British people he has banned President

Trump, whom he labelled a “wasteman”, from Sheffield during his forthcoming visit. Citing the “Muslim ban” and the detention of children at the border as the reason behind it he tweeted: "I Magid Magid, Lord Mayor & first citizen of this city hereby declare that not only is Donald J Trump a WASTEMAN, but he is also henceforth banned from the great city of Sheffield! I further declare July 13th to be Mexico Solidarity Day!"

Doesn't that reek of Third World demagoguery. The kind you'd find in, well, the Congo or Somalia. Pint-sized Idi Amin in the making. But such people are infesting the corridors of power throughout Britain and it gets worse every day. When will the Saxon begin to hate?

Monday, 9 July 2018

On the face of it, feminism has been an unalloyed success for women. They enjoy freedoms inconceivable in earlier times, discriminatory preferences over men (well White men anyway) in college admissions and promotions at work, they earn more and the law is massively biased in their favour. They’re ‘empowered’ baby! And nowhere more so than in sex and mating.

Social convention (or lack of same), contraception and abortion rights mean she no longer needs to remain chaste and virginal, hoping to be chosen by Mr. Right, marrying and having children while young, consigned to a life of drudgery and housework. Now the liberated young woman plays the field, hooks up, makes out. She has countless temporary relationships that won't interfere with education or career. Then, when she comes to her early thirties she’ll look to settle down and have her 1.5 children with a suitably emasculated husband.

Boy, it’s a woman’s world.

Or is it?

Look at it this way. When it comes to mating, what does your average raging hormone young man want? Am I projecting when I say plenty of sex with plenty of girls…..with little or no commitment? Or the real dream, have chicks come up to them and ask if they want to hook up, followed by casual sex, and then on to the next conquest? This is fairly common following the triumph of feminism.

But is that what most women really want? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe I’m wrong, but, just as the male is biologically programmed to spread his seed far and wide before eventually settling down with his love mate, the female is programmed to treat her reproductive capabilities with great discretion. (The young black man is a bit different in that he likes to play the field a bit, and see which babies come out the prettiest, before he settles down with just three or four of his favourite wummins). Both genders are programmed to have children and most, especially women, are likely to feel unfulfilled in their absence. Glamorous career or not.

Now go back to the having it all young woman. Empowered by an active sex life from her late teens onwards, and having established a glittering career in HR or Marketing (only dykes are of use in any other jobs) she’s now, having moved into her thirties, ready for phase two of her plan: To choose an appropriate mate and start a family. Aha! But theirein lies the rub. Because the years of maximum sexual attractiveness and fertility are now rapidly disappearing in her slipstream. Those years, characterised by casual relationships in which she probably held the whip hand (metaphorically speaking) have not prepared her well for long-term commitment. And another big shock: She’ll find that a very very high proportion of desirable men have already made their choices and settled down.

It happens all the time. Even here in this remote corner of Ireland I know lots and lots of attractive clever young women who realised late - too late - that they really did want a normal family. But by that time they are unprepared for it. Their skills revolve around being sexy career women, and when they lose the “sexy” part they’re left with nothing but a career — usually not a particularly impressive one in a cubicle farm. Within a few short years, years that fly by with horrifying speed, they are, to use the cruel colloquialism, 'past it'. Embittered, barren, hollowed-out husks, asking themselves where it all went wrong.

Meanwhile her male counterparts, having enjoyed her body while it was at its most sexually desirable, are now settled down with someone else. Someone who’s not as liberated as our heroine. And to crown it all the reality of innate capabilities and commercial pressures have meant that he’s now overtaken her.....she who thrived initially on AA but who just couldn’t cut it as the going got tougher and tougher and as her enthusiasm dropped on realising that career was a poor substitute for a family.

But if feminism has worked to men’s advantage in this way in reality it's a Pyrrhic victory for all of us. Because feminism has still achieved its primary goal of turning our men and women against one another and thereby precipitate the inevitable social degradation we now see around us.

Friday, 6 July 2018

Well the first one is that this has been an absolutely brilliant competition. Despite the anti-Russian hysteria that prevailed in the build-up and lachrymose claims by black players that their very lives were at risk in the xenophobic racist dystopia that is Putin's Russia nothing's happened. Same with terrorism. Western supporters were warned by their Governments against travelling due to the supposedly high risk of terrorism. Again, nothing. So the War Party's hopes have, at least so far, been dashed.And as usually happens not a single one of the supposedly under-represented Third World teams emerged from the Group stages. The reality, as the results show, and reflecting the world we live in, is that such countries are drastically over-represented. Soccer powerhouses such as Italy and Holland failed to make it out of the gruelling European qualifying rounds while makeweights such as Saudi Arabia and Panama qualified and duly got their asses handed to them. This has been much lamented by the commentariat. 'As an African I'm obviously saddened that no African team has gone through' observed one affirmative action 'journalist' in Ireland while his colleagues and commentators clucked in sympathy. Can you just imagine the reaction if someone had said 'as a European I'm glad no African teams got through in our place'?And speaking of Italy I introduce you hear to the new 'Italian' captain, Mario Bolletelli. I'm sure he knows exactly how to rouse and motivate his subjects by appealing to their proud history and cultural traditions, the glories of Rome and all that. Actually though it seems to me that European teams are much less cultural enriched than in earlier World Cups. Even France, which if memory serves me correctly had only one actual Frenchman on their 2014 team now have several. And the Swedish first team was made up almost entirely of, well, Swedes. Maybe it's just coincidence but just maybe it's a sign of some positive trend.Anyway, mostly good so far. Now if only Russia were to win it and rub their enemies' faces further in the mud!

Monday, 2 July 2018

The previous post was about how anti-white alliances in Western countries are inherently unstable and are beginning to fracture as parasite numbers grow and YT's spoils get thinner. I also predicted that, as a byproduct, Jews will come a cropper under this new dispensation as non-Whites are immune to Holocau$t™ guilt-tripping. And now another intriguing face-off is underway. I refer to the lawsuit against Harvard by Asians who uncovered data showing that if grades and standardised test scores alone determined admissions, the percentage of Asians in an incoming class would more than double, from 19% to 43%.Now I don't give a damn whether the suit succeeds or not. My view is that huge numbers of Asians should not be in America in the first place. Let them develop their own universities in their own countries instead of forcing out the people whose ancestors conceived of and built their own institutions. But if all goes well it could shine a light on the real admissions scandal. Even as things stand 'Whites' are under-represented as the following enrolment figures from 2014 show:Asian 16%Black non-Hispanic 7%Hispanic 8%International 10%Mixed 3%Unknown 12%Whites 43%

When SAT scores (the only neutral criterion) are taken into account both Whites and Asians are drastically under-represented. But the really significant statistic lies in the "White" breakdown. You see of that 43% Jews make up no less than 24% while gentile Whites make up a mere 19%. The respective proportions of the population are 2% and 68%. So Jews are over-represented compared to Whites - the people who founded and built the institution to its current preeminent position - by a staggering 1200%! This would be slightly reduced when corrected to reflect higher Jewish SAT scores but only slightly. I read research quoted by David Duke which shows that this margin has diminished to insignificant levels in recent years for reasons as yet unexplained.So that's the beguiling prospect held out by this lawsuit. And being taken by a non-White minority means it'll get favourable media treatment. So will the ten-ton elephant in the room finally be dragged out, trumpeting indignantly, into the cold light of day? Well we should never underestimate Jews' staggeringly effective shape-shifting abilities whereby they can transform from White ('greeting fellow white people') to unique persecuted minority depending on circumstantial exigencies.But for sure we'll watch this space.